If I want to buy a legal gun I have to get a background check, fill out 6 forms and wait three weeks for the background check to clear. If I want an illegal gun, I have to walk 6 blocks west of where I live and pay for a firearm of my choice.

You tell me which one is the easier option.

I have to disagree if they think you will shoot they will obviously try to shoot you first in self defence.

I'm with Shin on this one probably because I'm British of course we have a black market problem with guns whereby the Eastern European gangs are smuggling them in; however, I feel alot safe here than I would in any state in the USA. I don't need a gun to protect my person, why should anybody else because the ban creates a blanket of equality; of course you still have the black markets but that creates a lot less problems than legal supply.

I think its fool hardy to compare guns to knives or other objects. Guns are way more distructive, especially those automatics. Its much easier to shoot a guy heck you can do it from 20 yards but melee with a knife is a lot harder from 1 yard.

Personally I've seen it on a dozen documentaries more recently one with Ritch Hall last year where in that programme many Americans admitingly owned a gun for the VANITY or because an old line in the consitituion said they could, there was no other rationale behind their myopia.

Why is it considered myopic to own a gun again other than you don't like the fact that someone else other than the government can wield one?

Well because you know when you're squinting down them sights you might not see other things so well

So that's sort of myopic I guess?

Talk about Myopia. Basing your personal experience on hearsay isn't very personal. If I was to do that, I'd say I'd feel much less safe in Britain where violent crime, if not necessarily homicide is much higher per capita and people are victimized at a much higher rate for crimes in general.

To be armed used to be your right as a British citizen as well, but then you curtailed those freedoms for honestly no good reason. (well I guess socialists and commies were a good enough reason at the time)

Actually that isn't true I saw it in Hansard on a Parlimentry debate where an MP read out the stats that our violent crime AND gun crime were both less superior to that of the Americans but much higher than that of our European neighbours (in regards to violent crime especially). This was 2 years ago when I was studying Criminal law the first year of my degree so I can't vouch for the figure staying the same. It was during some sort of gun amnesty awhile back where we had a little froing between parties over an action plan.

I think if you ask most Brits whether that curtailment was a good or bad idea I think they'd go for the former. If nobody gets to own a gun I think that either equal fairness or equal discimination depending on how you want to see it for the protection of the public. Personal opinion itself here says we don't give carriers hard enough sentences.

What scares me most about the American Judicial system is the shear comical penalty for carrying an unlicensed gun, I've seen people getting frigging fines, suspended sentences, or community service. In the UK its a minimum 5 years in jail.

I am pretty much the furthest thing from a gun supporter I can think of but 5 years in prison seems a bit much for owning an unlicensed object. What's the sentence for driving unlicensed over there, 20-to-life?

Of course these are English prisons so it's likely not as bad as it sounds.

Was that in absolute terms or as a rate of crime and violence? Regardless, all forms of crime have been on the increase in Britain since the 1950's, long before legislation following the Dunblane Massacre.

The history of gun control measures in the UK and US suggest that attempts at strict gun control have little to no effect on violent or gun-related crime in the long term, going both ways.

Really the reason I wouldn't feel safe in Great Britain is because you've tied your hands behind your back in regards to the self-defense issue. It's come to the point where it's a greater legal liability to defend yourself or defend others in the case of an assault or robbery, so no fucking wonder crime has been on the increase.

The case of Tony Martin changed the law (more clarified than bring new meaning) even though he was convicted in the UK you can use Self defence as an 'absolute' defence to a charge of murder if you acted in self defence from an honestly held belief no matter unreasonable it was that you were under threat of physical harm. Long story short he shot an UNARMED tresspasser on his farm land in the back might I add after he tried to run away. He was convicted for murder unanimously and sentenced to life but had his conviction overtuned and reduced serverly to only 3 years on appeal.

The problem I find is most people don't make the distintinction between protecting yourself and protecting an inanimate object. This problem is due partial to the fact that as a trainee lawyer I'm quite legalistic in the law of Duress of circumstance any defence is only viable when its against a threat of 'life, limb, or liberty' Singh v Singh (heh used that case in my exam). In that respect you might slightly convince me of the self defence aspect of owning a gun.

However people like Night Phoenix as he put it wants to use his gun to protect his 'shit' This in my view is disproportionate use you might make a case in the above of gun ownership in self defence (not that I buy it), but I've seen that argument dismantled in the courts. Once again you could say my view is rather legalistic but our law states its ok to kill in self defence even if you do use a gun via a genuine held belief of a threat providing its honestly held (R v Conway) but NOT ok to kill in self defence of your LCD TV from being stolen and thats how the law should be. Guns create more problems than they solve and thats my stance.

Well that's the problem when you attempt to legally determine reasonable cause in a potentially life-threatening situation. When you feel like your life is in danger, regardless of the criminal intent reason goes out the window.

I'm not even talking about the use of a firearm, I mean in a general sense you're in more danger protecting yourself or property with less-than-lethal means than not due to the potential civil proceedings which favor the person committing the assault or robbery.

If I couldn't even put up my dukes to defend myself and my property I just would not have nice things, because if the fight is one-sided in my favor then it looks like I was being "unreasonable" regardless of any potential reality regarding the threat.

Awarding damages to injured persons after the fact because they only wanted to burgle and not hurt anybody (really I swear it) creates a situation where people shouldn't even bother defending themselves period in any manner.

Like I said before the law in the UK actually understands this fact, no matter how unreasonable if you have an honest and genuine belief to a threat of Life, limb or liberty you will not be convicted. If you have a glance at the case note on google for R v Conway (1989) you will see what I mean its a pretty funny case if you read the whole thing in regards to mens rea.

Your reasonable in defending 'yourself' but like in the Tony Martin case if you shoot a person even though a tresspasser who is UNARMED and RUNNING AWAY in the back to defend mere objects which hes insured for where is the reasonableness there? Personally I thought that was murder and the guy should be rotting in prison for life the jury was quite clear in its verdict too. Sure the law needed clarification but it doesn't mean shoot any guy on site.

As for property if you can pay a few hundred for a gun and permit surely instead you can pay a few hundred for your house insurance.

Brady, although technically it would appear that you can't legally defend yourself over here, in reality, if you're attacked, no policeman is going to arrest you for fighting back and defending yourself. What they would object to though is after you've knocked the guy out, stamping on his head.

I think looking at pure crime figures is a little blinkered too. Although it's true that the blanket ban on handguns had little real effect on the violent crime figures, we've had little in the way of school massacres since Dunblaine and very few random killing rampages. The press here are jumping all over every story of a kid getting stabbed or shot but the truth is, that's only really happening in really, really shitty bits of London, Liverpool and Manchester and for all the parents anguish about their cherubic little murdered angel, you can pretty much guarantee that for a wannabe gangster to have stabbed or shot them they must have been up to something.

Yes, illegal gun culture is a growing problem here but not nearly to the extent that the press would have us all believe. As several people have said already here, you're significantly more likely to get killed by an uninsured driver than to get shot by an unlicensed gun.

Pang, owning an unlicenced gun isn't referred to in crime terms as owning an unlicensed gun, it's possesion of a lethal weapon and lands you in jail for realistically, a couple of years, whereas driving an untaxed car merely gets you banned from driving for a year or so and your car gets crushed.

I'd like to see some reference regarding violent crimes committed with registered weapons in comparison to those that are illegally obtained.

To add more fuel to the fire of this discussion. What do you guys think of Joe Horn?

Pure texas filth. Shoots two unarmed men as they run away from him after choosing to confront them then plays the victim. I still can't believe that even down there they didn't prosecute him. Not to mention that they don't bother to tell you in this article he was actually confronting them when they had been on his neighbor's property rather than his own. So the castle doctrine should have been a mute point unless he was specifically charged with watching over his neighbors property while he was away. Which if remember some of the other articles on the matter he wasn't.

Ugh this shit makes those of us who actually support gun ownership but don't salivate at the chance to shoot shoot some wetbacks look really bad. And I don't appreciate that one bit.

Oh, that guy. Listening to the actual 911 call record is so much worse than reading it. They told him so many times to stay in his home, but he walks out and blasts those guys after saying "I'll kill 'em". If that's not intent to kill I don't know what is. The best part is at the end where the police are afraid he's gonna shoot them too, since they had undercover officers respond to the call.

Ah, found it.

YouTube Video

I don't even see how it's a matter worth discussing.

"Guys, what do you think of this fella who shot two strangers in the back for no good reason?"

Crushed?

That's significantly more hardcore than the use of an impound lot, I applaud.

They were on his property, sir.

They did not come onto his property until he walked outside to confront them. Which the 911 dispatcher told him not to do six times.

Doesn't matter - they came on his property and they got fucked up. Grand jury didn't see it fit to indict him, therefore what's the problem?

As far as I'm concerned, justice was served. (That is, had he been indicted and eventually convicted, I would say the same)

Well arguably the problem could be posited as follows:

Couple of dudes were shot and killed for no real reason at all.

You see how people might object to that.

See, I can see the argument for wanting to own a handgun for protection, or a rifle for hunting. Here's the bit I don't get: What possible reason is there for it to be legal for a citizen to own an assault rifle.

Just curious.

Given that this was all over the local news when it happened . . .

While no reason at all is definitely a bad reason to shoot someone, it wasn't as if the two were simply walking down the street not doing anything. They did happen to have committed robbery of Horn's neighbor's home with him witnessing, so he had some reason to at least have caution. Unfortunately, he decided that he didn't want to risk being the next victim of a robbery nor did he like seeing a crime being committed and the perpetrators walk away so quickly, so he decided to do what he believes it is the right thing to do.

You're making it seem like he was some trigger-happy nut who just felt like roleplaying a hero. The guy is an old man with probably an outdated sense of priorities. His character though is quite sound, from the reports and articles surrounding this affair.

Granted, I don't necessarily agree with his actions, but he wasn't exactly wrong in doing so either.

No, they were robbing (taking property) from someone who wasn't him, and he responded by taking their lives. By shooting them. In the back.


"Doing what you think is right" isn't an excuse when "what you think is right" is murder.

(cue NP to tell me that blah blah acquitted technically not murder!)

I don't think the fact that he shot them in the back can be stressed enough, it sort of implies that they're running away and not presenting any danger to his life or property.

As a member of the militia, which is everybody depending on how you interpret that, an assault rifle is the best thing you have for use in militia duties short of improvised explosives. The only problem is that the well regulated militia aspect isn't regulated at all and nobody receives any mandatory training in asymmetric warfare and responsible weapons storage.

This is obviously false, because if it were true, then it meant that for all intents and purposes, you're saying that Joe Horn is a sociopath who kills people simply because he has the ability to do so.